At least for me its very difficult to make the line between preventing hate speech and allowing the freedom. I’m thinking to launch a lemmy instance, but the targeted audience is very sensitive to religion topics, and i’m sure if i allow it, this could lead to hate speech at some point and may fuel violence. Also, from my prospective, i just want my audience find new good things far from porn, porn sites are a lot, and i don`t want to mix it with other topics that can very constructive.
So please tell me your opinion, if banning these 2 topics can effect the freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech means that THE STATE doesn’t prosecute you for saying stuff. If you start a cat forum you can and certainly should ban people who come there to disturb people who just want to engage with the intended topics. Imagine if someone argued something like “I like dogs more” in every thread in that forum. If you ban them, you aren’t limiting their freedom of speech, you are just enforcing your rules. This is necessary for a cat forum to exist btw.
Tl;dr: you can set rules however you like.
Yeah, sometimes you need to set rules solely to keep chatter from crowding out on topic speech. Even if you are generally pro-free speech, that can be necessary for community moderation.
I’d disagree with that. If government is nothing more than the organization that represents society and enacts its desires (for justice, for order, etc), then any proscription that applies to government also should apply to the society that formed that government.
If the government may not conduct an unreasonable search of your home, would you then permit a gang of unruly citizens to toss your house, find evidence of “crimes”, and turn it into the police? “It’s not disallowed, because they’re not the government” seems asinine.
This is a logical fallacy. Illegal search and seizure applies to the government. Breaking and entering and theft apply to individuals. In the US one is prevented by the constitution (like freedom of speech) and the other follows local laws. They aren’t the same.
Sure, sure. And just as soon as they catch them, they’ll punish them too! No need to worry about that.
No. A logical fallacy is when I make a mistake in logic. Instead, I offered you a scenario where “freedom from unreasonable searches” applies only to and strictly to the government, and yet you’d still be in danger of such things, and asked you if you’d like that?
Your response was “but nyuh nyuh, nanna nanna boo boo!”. You’ve accused me of making mistakes in my logic, and said that my hypothetical doesn’t count. Or something.
And perhaps the Constitution needs to be updated. Perhaps it doesn’t go far enough.
Perhaps there are scenarios where non-government entities can engage in suppression of speech to such an extent that it should be prohibited and punished if the prohibition is violated. I do not think the OP’s scenario is one of those, but I can think of several where that might be the case.
What is going on here is that you, with your deficit of imagination and burning compulsion for status quo likes suppression of free speech when you perceive that you belong to the group in charge benefiting from it. Should that ever change, you won’t even be able to effectively complain about the negative effects of the role reversal.